It is easy to vilify psychiatrists. Their spurious conceptual framework, toxic “treatments’ and blatantly corrupt links to pharma make them easy targets. Their destructive activities, to which they resolutely cling, invite criticism which they steadfastly ignore. Any thoughts that perhaps they had seen the errors of their ways have been dashed by the soon-to-be published DSM-5, which promises to be business as usual, only more so. HOW DID THEY GET THIS WAY? ...
In DSM-IV, a “diagnosis” of major depressive disorder is based on the presence of a major depressive episode. A major depressive episode, in turn, is defined by the presence of five or more items from the following list during a two-week period: (1) depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood. ...
Today, courtesy of Talla Trialogue on Twitter, I have read an article by Shari Roan called Blood Test for Depression Proves It’s Not All In Your Head. You can see it here. The article appears to be an interview with Lonna Williams, the CEO of Ridge Diagnostics. This company is reportedly introducing a blood test for depression. The test is called MDDScore and is expected to cost $745. The article tells us that: “You get a numerical score that suggests how likely it is that you have depression. Studies show that MDD Score is about as accurate at making a diagnosis as the most rigorous evaluations.” ...
BACKGROUND A couple of weeks ago (March 23), the New York Times did a feature on “Defining Mental Illness.” They invited Ronald Pies, MD (a psychiatry professor at SUNY Upstate Medical University and Tufts University) to submit a brief paper on this topic. Various people with opposing views were allowed to respond, and finally Dr. Pies presented a much longer summary and rebuttal. You can see the entire print version here. ...
In DSM-IV, there is a category called Somatoform Disorders, the common feature of which is a preoccupation with “… physical symptoms that suggest a general medical condition …and are not fully explained by a general medical condition…” Four of the “diagnoses” in this category will be retired in DSM-5 and will be replaced by a new “diagnosis”: somatic symptom disorder. The four superseded “diagnoses” are: 1. somatization disorder 2. hypochondriasis 3. pain disorder 4. undifferentiated somatoform disorder. ...
It is a central theme of this website that there are no mental illnesses/disorders, and that the psychiatric medicalization of ordinary human problems is arbitrary, spurious, and destructive. The widespread acceptance of ADHD as a mental illness/chemical imbalance has no scientific underpinning, but rather is based on marketing and promotion. The ADHD “diagnosis” is particularly destructive, in that it targets children, and serves as the justification for “treating” these children with dangerous drugs. ...
BACKGROUND There’s an article by Jack Carney, DSW, on this topic on Mad in America. Jack refers to the DSM-5 field trials published earlier this year in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Inter-rater reliability is measured by a statistic called a kappa score. A score of 1 means perfect inter-rater agreement; a score of 0 indicates zero agreement. In psychosocial research a kappa score of 0.7 or above is generally considered good. ...
There’s an interesting new article by Paula Caplan here. It discusses the harmful effects of psychiatric “diagnoses,” including the fact that because of these labels, people have lost their “… jobs, custody of children, health insurance, and the right to make decisions about their medical and legal affairs.” Paula also mentions a petition she created in December 2011 calling for “Congressional Hearings about Psychiatric Diagnosis.” The petition is still up. You can find it here ...
BACKGROUND I recently wrote a post called DSM-5: Another Step in the Wrong Direction. In that article I argued that DSM-5 was simply another step in the APA’s ongoing agenda to medicalize all human problems and to legitimize the administration of drugs as the front line “solution” to these problems. I also expressed concern that the widely publicized movement to develop an alternative diagnostic system might not look all that different from what we have today. ...
It’s widely known that the initial drafts of DSM-5 received a great deal of negative comment. It’s also known that some of the more controversial proposals have been scrapped, but that others have been retained and sent for printing. All of this was fairly predictable. The APA’s agenda is to widen the “diagnostic” net to include as many people as possible. But they’re not complete fools. They know that there’s a good deal of anti-psychiatry feeling out there, so in my view, they floated some very contentious proposals, fully accepting that these would be withdrawn under pressure, thereby creating the perception that they are reasonable folk just trying to do what’s right. Meanwhile, other proposals go under the wire unscathed, and the “diagnostic” net is widened. Mission accomplished. ...